Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-20

To the Editor of the Gazette.
My DEAR SIR-In your esteemed favor
OF the l1th inst. you ask me TO express my
opinion, for publication, upon the follow
Ing question:
''Would or would it not be advisable
and to the best interests Of the Demo
cratic party to leave the question lin
reference to the sale, etc, of spirituous
liquors. where i. was left by the Calves
ton platform, or without any mention
Whatever"
I answer:
That the Democratic party in It's
statutes, constitution and convention has
spoken on the question and clearly out
lined its policy.
That the people Of the state, without
reference to party, have spoken, and that
the psrty and people having spoken after
full discussion and much agitation, the
question should be eliminated from
further consideration by the party, and
for g length OF time sufficient at least
to allow the public mind to cool, should
not be mentioned at all.
The Democratic party has substantially
controlled Tex.s from time imemmorial,
thrown restrictions around the sale of
spirituous liquors, thereby admitting its
sale for drinking purposes to be an evil
of sufficient magnitude to require regu-
| lating. In the last unconstitutional conven-
ton these restrictions were not deemed
sufficient, and the local option clause
authorizing the prohibition of sales in any
! locality in the state, was made organic ;
many people were dissatisfied with this
on the ground that community that
enforced 1t would be surrounded by com
munities that refused to enforce it, and
practically it did no good but tended TO
aggravate the evil complained Of; the
question became general and was a
source of much trouble and thought. In
this state Of affairs our Legislature
framed an amendment to the constitution
to be submitted 10 the people, in
which they honestly did the best they
could to fairly present the issue existing
in the public mind, and by its result settle
the question and eliminate it from pol
tics. Thus, it will be seen that the Dem
ocratic party first placed restrictions upon
the sale, and then inserted q prohibitory
clause in the constitution, then in con-
vention declared that vote either way
and then declared by submitting the
amendment that it was a question for al
the people without reference to party
Because, II they did not mean this, then
common hosesty would require that ii
submitting it they should have declared
that it would be undemocratic to vote tol
it. II it was not meant that each voter
should be at liberty to place his own con
14r olI Aa-
questions then 1t was snare, delusiof
and 8 fraud. tske it, that every Demo.
crat in the state knows that it is funda
mental with the party to oppose all laws
that are sumptusry in their nature o.
that restrict the personal liberty Of tn,
citizen where his acts do not affect hi
neighbor.
There can be no doubt of the fact tina
Democrats voting upon the amendment
placed different constructions, the prin
cipal of which were
l. That the amendment was q mere
police regulation and did not come with
in the meaning OF sumptusry or restric-
tive of personal liberty-/and I will here
! add that this was clearly my view
2. That il was sump.uary and restric
!, tive Of personal liberty, and therefore IN
/ DehOCIatlC.
! Now when the question is submitted t
; each individual voter in the state and b,
J is told to choose for himself, is he re
quired to adopt his neighbours views il
: preference to his own? l Judge not
, Hence he who said it was police regu
! lation had right to so say. he VIII
said it was sumptuary and q restriction
: OF personal liberty mad right to tina
opinion, and on these different construc
7 tions an exhaustive discussion an
considerable feeling, If no
: bitterness, was engendered. Thi
8 being true is it not wise to now drop tn
t question? Will any good result by con
I tinuing the controversy? Are extremist
. and politicians to be permitted ~ keep
D people who love peace and Quittin Or
q slant ferment? Is this question som
+ portsnt that the permanency Of our yst
e tutions depend on its further age8tio
g and discussion? Will the peopletPerm
Il our grand state to become haaE pullin
s machine upon one single question af,ec
g ing only traffic in certain Commodity
q Heaven forbid! 1 repeat the language I
our illustrious deceased ex-Presiden
g "Let US have peace"
n II you think the foregoing has mer
n cufficient RI uarrsut vOu in Dunlishiup 1